PASSAGE

INTRODUCTION

Like many others in the prophetic literature, the passage just quoted evokes easily perceived and absorbing insights, strong emotions, and perplexing questions. The power of Yahweh to deliver His people, the tone of rejoicing and praise and hope in this passage, strike the reader the first time through and often impress him again and again; other matters are not so readily understood. For example, why is Isaiah, a prophet who lived a century before the Babylonian exile even began, concerning himself with a vision of deliverance from exile? Why does the apostle Paul, in Romans 10, apply this passage to the presentation of the gospel by the early Christian church, an application which seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with the context of the passage? What does it mean to say that the watchmen shall “see eye to eye”? Why is it said that “Yahweh has made bare His holy arm”? Does the command to the waste places to break forth into joy and sing merely a metaphor, or does it have an even more powerful significance?

A prudent study into a number of matters relating to this passage (i.e., history, context, form, etc.) will yield reasonable answers to a number of questions such as these. From some of these answers will arise questions concerning the nature of such things as music and praise, and what they mean to the church and to individual Christians today. But first, the passage itself will be dealt with.

FIRST-LEVEL (IMMEDIATE HISTORICAL) APPLICATION

The first curiosity mentioned above, namely, that of an eighth-century prophet writing a passage of hope for deliverance from exile at a time when his audience is not in exile and in fact will not go into exile in their lifetimes, is underpinned by a basic assumption: it presupposes that an eighth-century prophet, namely Isaiah ben-Amoz, did in fact write the passage. This presupposition is by no means universally accepted, and must be given some reflection.

There are two principal theories concerning the authorship of the book of Isaiah: that the entire book was written by Isaiah ben-Amoz in about the 8th century B.C.; and that chapters 1-39 were written by the aforementioned author at the aforementioned time, whereas chapters 40-66 were written by a later Isaiah who is often dated in the 2nd or 3rd century B.C. (Actually, there is considerable disagreement as to the details of the latter theory, which confusion is often regarded as evidence against its feasibility. Some say that there were more than two Isaiahs, and the chapters are divided differently; but the main point of contention is that the entire book could not have been written by Isaiah ben-Amoz, for reasons given below.) The former theory was almost universally accepted until the latter theory emerged among German higher critics of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and has since gained widespread acceptance.

The latter theory is based primarily on two ideas: (1) that prophetic foreknowledge is impossible, so chapters 40ff. must have been written at a much later date, because they mention Cyrus of Persia, who did not become prominent until the 6th century B.C.; and (2) the subject matter and style of chapters 40-66 are entirely different from those of chapters 1-39. As to the first argument, there does not exist one shred of evidence for the factuality of the assumption upon which it is based; the second argument is irrelevant, as the same author is quite capable of (and free to) spend the latter half of his work on a different subject matter than that of the former half. Furthermore, there are at least as many similarities in style between the two halves as there are differences (e. g., the expression referring to God which is translated “the Holy One of Israel” appears an almost exactly equal number of times in each “half” of the book, and this expression is favored by Isaiah more than any other prophet). Thus, the idea that Isaiah ben-Amoz wrote the entire book will be adopted. Readers wishing to examine the evidence in favor of this assertion in further detail are directed to the works by Delitzsch and Young cited in the bibliography.

The scriptural context of the passage strongly supports the assertion that the passage’s immediate reference is to deliverance from captivity in Babylon. In chapters 45ff., Cyrus is mentioned by name (a century in advance!) as the human instrument and instigator of this deliverance. Lament and woe are sung for Babylon and her idols, and the proclamation of the power of the infinite Yahweh over the impotence of the idols in chapters 42ff. serves to underscore the assertion that “even the captives of the terrible shall be delivered.” When the beginning of chapter 52 is reached, Israel is told to arise and prepare for deliverance; reference is made to the Egyptian bondage and to the oppression of Assyria (referring, among other things, to Sennacherib’s overrunning and takeover of all Judah’s fortified cities except Jerusalem, and to the siege of Jerusalem from which the latter was miraculously delivered, as recorded in chapters 36 and 37) in verse 4, and then Israel’s “present” exile is referred to as an event subsequent to the former two, removing any doubt.

Then comes a powerful climax, namely, the passage presently under discussion and the two verses following: the deliverance of Israel is grasped as an accomplished fact, exultation and praise are called for, and Israel is joyfully directed to come forth from exile. Then a curious thing happens: the prophet hits full force with the apotheosis (52:13-53:12) of his suffering “servant of Yahweh” motif, first introduced at the beginning of chapter 42. The peculiarity of this juxtaposition is exacerbated by the fact that Isaiah, immediately afterwards, picks up the thread of deliverance and rejoicing, and weaves it on into the culminating tapestry of the glorious chapter 55, as if nothing at all had happened!

SECOND-LEVEL (MESSIANIC) APPLICATION

This sort of seemingly inexplicable, radical shift of tone and vision is by no means an isolated phenomenon in the prophetic literature (Hosea, too makes considerable use of it). In fact, Isaiah himself makes use of it elsewhere, perhaps most prominently in the first five chapters, in which horrid visions of destruction and desolation in Judah as the consequence of rebellion, alternate rapidly, and apparently without continuity, with glorious vistas of the ideal, almost paradisal Israel, fulfilling God’s purpose among the nations.

In such passages as these, it is evident that the juxtaposed element points beyond the immediate, obvious application of the main line of thought to Yahweh’s higher purpose; and the latter adds a new dimension to the former. In the case of the first five chapters, for example, Yahweh asserts that He has not lost one iota of His vision of Israel gloriously fulfilling the mission to which He had called it, in spite of the destruction brought on by Israel’s rebellion. In Isaiah 40-55, this translates into His vision of Israel’s release from the aforementioned result of this rebellion, namely, the Babylonian captivity, so that Israel may have yet another opportunity to fulfill her calling. Yahweh, in introducing the suffering Servant (who is, in fact, Himself), declares His intention to deal directly with the problem that disrupted the process of His will in the first place: the captivity of sin, from which Israel must be delivered if she is ever to fulfill her calling. In a passage of absolutely stunned shock and the greatest pathos, Isaiah relates the vision of Yahweh accomplishing the deliverance from the captivity of sin by Himself absorbing the devastating full force of the consequences of rebellion.

This understanding does, indeed, shed a whole new light on the passage presently under consideration. The good news proclaimed by the messenger in verse 7 is seen, on this level, to be the gospel. In connection with this, it is quite interesting to observe that the Hebrew word translated “salvation” in verses 7 and 10 is yeshua (from the root yasha, to be open, wide, free), from which the name “Jesus” is derived directly! The scope of the gospel, which is an ultimate revelation of the power of Yahweh, truly encompasses “all the nations” and “all the ends of the earth.” Furthermore, it gives relevance and meaning for Christians today to the strong Hebrew language (discussed later) extolling Israel to rejoice and sing praises over their deliverance from exile into a new beginning.

The apostle Paul, in Romans 10, saw this deeper sense of deliverance, equating the messengers of verse 7 with the church, and linking 53:1 to the astonishment and disbelief which the preaching of the gospel encountered. We can now see something of the plausibility, the depth, the power and the vision of his interpretation of Isaiah 52 and 53.

IMAGERY

Edward Young (cited in the bibliography) has pointed out that the phrase “see eye to eye” (verse 8) does not, in Hebrew, have the modern English connotation of perfect agreement. Rather, it refers to the watchmen witnessing the Lord’s deliverance of Zion at eye-contact distance, with the connotation being of perfect clarity. The imagery here thus serves to underscore the assertion that the vision of the deliverance accomplished by Yahweh (with all of the concomitant meaning heretofore mentioned) will be absolutely plain to, and have an extremely powerful impact upon, those who witness it.

"Yahweh has made bare his holy arm” (verse 10), as observed by Franz Delitzsch (see bibliography), refers to the battlefield practice, in Isaiah’s day, of the literal baring of the arm, by rolling up the sleeve, effected by warriors going into battle. In the context of the passage under consideration, Yahweh’s holiness (equated with His power), which has for so long seemed hidden, is here revealed, is seen in action. This active sense may be extended to verse 9 (“Break forth together! Sing, you waste places of Jerusalem!”): the restoration of the ruins of Jerusalem is a dynamic effect of Yahweh’s deliverance, and the former (according to Delitzsch) “are to break out into jubilant shouting as they rise from the ground” (!).

This latter metaphor, in which inanimate objects and, often nature itself, rejoice and sing the praises of Yahweh, is a commonly occurring element in other songs of (and passages expressive of) praise to Yahweh, such as Psalm 98 and Isaiah 55:10-13. It is an image of surging power, a fact which is most strongly brought out by the response of Jesus to the Pharisees’ complaint about the praises sung at the time of the Triumphal Entry: “If these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out” (Luke 19:40). The tide of praise returning to Yahweh is precisely that unstoppable and overwhelming, and Christians, who have been delivered from the bondage of sin, are privileged to make a quantitatively small yet qualitatively consummate addition to that tide.

APPENDIX: THIRD-LEVEL (CONTEMPORARY) APPLICATION

That the tone of this passage is one of praise and rejoicing, is self-evident; a brief inspection of two of the Hebrew words used in this passage will suffice to show its connection with music.

The Hebrew word translated “sing” in verses 8 and 9, is ranan. It is a primary root which means literally, “to creak” (i.e., to emit a strident sound); when referring to humans, it is taken to mean “shout.” While this shout is not strictly a musical sound, it is often used in parallel poetry with almost every other word for joy, rejoicing and praise, and occurs often in the Psalms.

Patsach is the word rendered “break forth into joy” in verse 8, where it is used alongside ranan for emphasis. Six of its seven other occurrences in the Old Testament are in Isaiah; in all of these instances, it is almost invariably rendered “break forth into singing” and is almost always used in connection with joy, praise and singing. Combining this connotation with the literal meaning, we have the sense of the spontaneous eruption of the whole being into a song of praise to Yahweh.

Given this accent upon the expression of praise in music, a number of often hotly-debated issues appear in the limelight. Perhaps chief among them is, which music constitutes the best and truest expression of praise to Yahweh?

There is no categorically simple answer. To say that there is, presupposes that all songs or pieces representative of a given musical style are “good” or “bad,” “right” or “wrong,” stereotypically. This view is easy to adopt, because it draws a rather well-defined line and particularly because it requires little or no thought; but this certainly does not speak in its favor. One can, for example, find that there exist hymns of relatively inferior quality and “contemporary Christian” songs of relatively superior quality. A better (though admittedly more difficult) solution, is to adopt criteria, as objective criteria as are possible, and (1) to apply these criteria to a given piece of music without prejudging it by its “style category”; (2) to determine “style categories” in which superior expressions of praise are likely to be found. While admitting that there are crossovers, and that these make such determination more difficult, I would like to propound that most of Western music in the last several centuries falls into two large, extended categories: that which is based upon “popular” idioms, and that which is more “traditional,” or “classical.”

With respect to the former category, there has been a strong trend, particularly noticeable in the last ten years and prominent for the last five, to set “Christian” lyrics to music written in popular idioms (pop, rock, heavy metal, etc.). This trend is commonly referred to as “contemporary Christian music.” Contemporary Christian artists maintain that their intention is to set forth the truths of the gospel in media that appeal to a large number of the general populace, particularly adolescents and college-age (and, in all fairness, this genuinely is the intention in most cases). In order to avoid the problem of stylistic association with “worldly” music in the same idioms, they will often assert that the music itself is neutral, only the words can be used to judge; that the whole question of the music itself is entirely subjective; and that the method they are using is a relevant, meaningful and fresh approach to the spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and therefore justified.

Concerning the supposed “neutrality” of music, it is generally assumed, despite much evidence to the contrary, that emotional responses produced by music are not to any degree inherent in the music itself. Even if this is true, an important fact is overlooked: from external evidence, the responses of most people who enjoy any given style of music are incredibly similar, even if they are learned. For example, those who enjoy heavy metal (to use an extreme example) will respond almost identically to two given songs (one “secular,” one “Christian") in that idiom, no matter what the words say; this leads one to conclude that attempting to preach the gospel in this medium is largely of none effect (though Yahweh does reach people in surprising ways), and that the tone of the music and the tone of the words flatly contradict one another. Much (though not all) of “popular” music expresses (no matter what subject it discusses) mostly shallow sentiments and appeals to the sensual to the exclusion of the noble and spiritual in man, and one cannot radically change its nature simply by changing the words. Even if response to the music is entirely subjective, the argument in favor of the effectiveness of the method breaks down in the vast majority of cases, so that the question of effectiveness ought to be reconsidered rather than merely assumed. If that much contemporary Christian music fails to present the true spirit and meaning of the gospel, then its relevance is, at the very least, extremely suspect.

What, then, of hymns and “classical” music? Upon searching this field, with relatively few exceptions, one finds words and music (sometimes without words) expressing the very noblest and spiritually uplifting sentiments: Handel’s Messiah, with its expressive settings of Scripture texts relating to the birth, passion and exaltation of Christ; Haydn’s Creation, with its account of the creation of the world and the pre-Fall happiness of Adam and Eve, thoroughly infused with the spirit of praise, particularly in its choruses; the sometimes quiet, always mighty devotion of Bach’s preludes and fugues and chorale settings for organ; the reverence, nobility and grandeur in the symphonies of Bruckner; Dupré’s Passion-Symphony for organ, with its overpowering depiction of the pathos of Calvary and its powerful, joyous toccata celebrating the resurrection; the Fourth and Fifth Symphonies of Nielsen, where the good and noble element overcomes the very fiercest opposing and indifferent elements; the great hymns (O Sacred Head Now Wounded, Praise to the Lord, Crown Him with Many Crowns, to name only a few) where text and music combine to offer forceful praise to Yahweh; and these are only a few examples of greatness in this “style.” Even though not all attain to this standard, many more can be found by search and investigation.

If most people in Western society do not really appreciate these things, does it mean that they cannot? Decidedly not. Among other things, the power of Christianity to uplift and refine the tastes of ordinary men and women never fails when allowed to work. I affirm (and challenge any Christian to prove me wrong) that if one exposes oneself to this caliber of music over an extended period of time (and this period will vary in length), one will not only learn to appreciate its worth, but will find it far more satisfying than superficial popular idioms, and will praise Yahweh for having done so for all of life and all of eternity.